5.  The applicant was born in 1920 and resides in Vilnius.
6.  In 2000, the local authorities restored the applicant’s rights to part of a plot of land located near house no. 43 in Svajonių street in the Valakupiai neighbourhood in Vilnius. The plot had belonged to her late mother, but had been nationalised in the 1940s.
7.  The applicant brought an action against the Vilnius local authority, claiming restitution of her property rights to the remaining 0.33 hectares of the plot in natura.
8.  On 21 December 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed her action as unsubstantiated. It noted that in the Government ruling no. 239 (see Relevant domestic law and practice part below) the area where the plot was located was designated as a forest of national importance. Given that such forests were to be bought out by the State, in accordance with Article 13 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to Existing Real Property enacted in 1997 (hereinafter “the Law on Restitution”), there was no legal basis to grant the applicant’s action. The court also implied that the applicant could obtain restitution in another form, as Article 16 of the Law on Restitution provided.
9.  On 12 February 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision and granted the applicant’s action. On the basis of topographic plans provided by the local authorities the court found that the disputed plot of land was situated adjacent to the buildings that belonged to the applicant. The court noted that the documents concerning the return in natura of that plot had been prepared before the Government ruling no. 239 was adopted. Nevertheless, that ruling merely noted that 13,990 hectares of land constituted forests of national importance; the boundaries of those plots had not been marked. For the appellate court, there were no factual data to support the claim that the disputed 0.33 hectares of land were in a forest of national importance. The court also noted that by a letter of 23 March 2001 the Vilnius local authority had confirmed that the boundaries of forests of national importance in Valakupiai neighbourhood had not [yet] been established. Lastly, and as it had been confirmed by the Vilnius local authority, there were no other obstacles to return the plot in natura.
The appellate court thus ordered the Vilnius local authority to restore the applicant’s rights to “the 0.33 hectares of land adjacent to the house no. 43 in Svajonių street in Vilnius”. That decision became final and effective.
10.  In 2003, the applicant brought an action against the Vilnius local authority, complaining that the decision of 12 February 2002 had not been executed.
11.  On 31 October 2003 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted her action, obliging the Vilnius local authority to take relevant measures to execute the court decision of 12 February 2002. The court noted that the local authority had not established any additional circumstance, which had materialised after 12 February 2002, that would make it impossible to restore the property rights in natura.
12.  The Vilnius local authority appealed, arguing that the disputed plot in fact was in the forest of national importance. It noted that, contrary to what had been concluded by the lower court, there was new evidence to that effect. Firstly, on 7 August 2002 the Ministry of Environment had presented a report no. 08-03-4386 stating that the forest did include the plot; the local authority submitted that before preparing the above report, a specialist of the Forestry Department had checked the plot on the spot [and confirmed that there was a forest]. Secondly, another report no. 12-2-430 of 22 January 2003 by the Ministry of Environment also confirmed, on the basis of the latest topographic data from Valakupiai neighbourhood, the presence of a national forest on the disputed plot. Thirdly, an extract from the Vilnius territorial plan also showed that the disputed plot fell into the category of property to be bought by the State. The Vilnius local authority argued that all those new pieces of evidence had been presented to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court before it adopted the decision of 31 October 2003, but the court had not taken them into account.
The appeal was received at the registry of the Supreme Administrative Court on 20 November 2003.
13.  By a ruling of 1 December 2003 the president of the Supreme Administrative Court took notice of the appeal and ordered the parties to submit written responses to it.
14.  On 9 February 2004 the president of the Supreme Administrative Court lodged a recommendation for the reopening of the case. He wrote that although the Supreme Administrative Court had found that there were no data to establish that the disputed plot of land was in the forest of national importance, the documents by the Ministry of Environment and the Vilnius local authority allowed the conclusion that that plot could be in such a protected area.
15.  On 12 February 2004 a Chamber of three Supreme Administrative Court judges decided to reopen the proceedings. It found that the Supreme Administrative Court could have erred in fact and thus in law when adopting the decision of 12 February 2002. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court had found that there were insufficient data to prove that the plot at issue was in the forest of national importance, because the borders of such forests had not been marked. However, such forests were marked on the topographic plans by the Ministry of Environment, attached to the Government’s ruling no. 239. Should the disputed plot be located in the areas marked on those topographic plans, it could belong only to the State.
16.  The execution proceedings were stayed until the resolution of the merits of the applicant’s claim for the 0.33 hectares of land.
17.  In the meantime, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Forestry Department at the Ministry of Environment to provide the court with maps showing forests of national importance in the Valakupiai neighbourhood.
18.  On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed its decision of 12 February 2002. It noted that the applicant’s claim had to be determined on the basis of the Government’s ruling no. 239 and Article 13 of the Law on Restitution, and reiterated that the topographic plans by the Ministry of Environment were an inseparable part of the Government’s ruling no. 239. The court decision reads:
“after the proceedings in the applicant’s case had been resumed, the Supreme Administrative Court had obtained an extract of the forests’ topographic map approved by the Government’s ruling no. 1154 of 23 October 1997 [which on 1 March 2000 was partly amended by the Government’s ruling no. 239]. Having compared that map with other maps in the case-file (pages 137 and 240), it is clear that the plot of land to be returned [in natura] to the applicant is in the forest of national importance. This fact was confirmed by relevant State institutions. It follows that pursuant to Article 13 § 1 of the Law on Restitution, the applicant may not claim restitution of the disputed plot, situated near the house no. 43 in Svajonių street in Vilnius, in natura. It must also be concluded that the Supreme Administrative Court, when it decided the case on appeal, had not identified the boundaries of forests of national importance, and thus applied the law erroneously...”
19.  In the light of the above, the Supreme Administrative Court held that “the original ruling of 21 December 2001 of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, whereby the applicant’s restitution claim had been dismissed, was, in principle, correct”.
20.  As it transpires from the documents submitted by the Government, page 240 of the administrative case-file is a topographic map of Valakupiai neighbourhood; the document’s date is 11 May 2004. The disputed plot appears to be in the national forest.
21.  By a letter of 13 March 2012 the Government informed the Court that, as it concerned the 0.33 hectares plot of land in Svajonių street, the applicant still had a possibility to obtain another plot of land of equal value or to receive monetary compensation. The Vilnius City Land Management Department had informed the applicant about her options. However, the applicant insisted that she be given that particular plot and had not expressed her wish as to other possible way of compensation.